If a student discovers a violation of the Academic Honor Policy, he or she must report the incident to the course instructor. If an instructor believes that a student in one of the instructor`s classes has violated the Academic Honor Policy, the instructor should first contact the Office of the Vice President of Faculty Development and Advancement to find out if the student has ever had academic dishonesty to determine whether to proceed with a Stage 1 agreement (for Instructors based in Panama City, the Dean`s office on the Panama City campus will also help). The professor must also inform the head of department or the dean. (Teaching assistants should seek advice from their supervising faculty member, and lecturers should seek advice from their department head.) However, faculty members or others who do not have the administrative authority to apply the Academic Honour Policy should not be informed of the allegation unless they have identified a legitimate need for knowledge. If the continuation of a Stage 1 agreement is deemed possible, the instructor should discuss the evidence of academic dishonesty with the student and consider the possibility of a Stage 1 agreement (see fda.fsu.edu/academic-resources/academic-integrity-and-grievances/academic-honor-policy). Four possible outcomes of this discussion may arise: If an instructor believes that a student in one of the instructor`s classes has violated the Academic Honor Policy, the instructor must first contact the Office of Student Affairs to find out if the student has a criminal record of academic dishonesty in order to decide whether to proceed with a Stage 1 agreement or an Academic Honor Policy hearing. The professor must also inform the head of department or the dean. The role of the selection committee is only to determine whether the student has provided sufficient evidence to warrant further examination. Within five teaching days of this meeting, the selection committee will communicate its decision in writing (noting that it recommends or does not recommend further examination) to the head of department, the principal or officer of the school, the student and the instructor.
A negative decision terminates the appeal. A positive decision triggers the next step in the process. In the appeal, the burden of proof shifts to the student to prove that an error occurred. The only grounds for appeal are: The student or hearing panel may subpoena appropriate witnesses to provide information about alleged violations at a formal hearing. The hearing takes place in a non-adversarial manner with a clear focus on fact-finding in the academic context of the scientific work. The presumption of innocence applies to the student before the proceedings. After hearing all available and relevant information from the student and instructor, the committee decides whether or not the student is responsible for the alleged violation, using the standard of “predominance of evidence”. If the student is held responsible for the violation, the panel will be informed of any previous violation of the Academic Honor Policy and will establish an academic sanction (and, if applicable, a disciplinary sanction).
In some cases, a Level 1 sanction may have been appropriately proposed prior to the convening of an academic honour hearing. If the student is found responsible in these cases, the committee generally imposes a sanction that is no stricter than that proposed by the faculty member. The panel must provide a clear written justification for the imposition of a sanction that is more stringent than the sanction proposed in Step 1. Yes, you can email the student a completed Stage 1 Agreement outlining the allegations and ask them to sign and return the Stage 1 Agreement within a certain period of time. Some professors have Zoom meetings with students to discuss alleged violations of the Academic Honor Policy before sending the Stage 1 agreement via email. Students who have questions about their options should contact the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards at sccs@fsu.edu. Dr. Irvin Clark Vice Dean of Faculty & Administrative Affairs Holley Academic Center A311 850-770-2100iclark2@pc.fsu.edu If the student has a history of academic dishonesty, denies any responsibility in a Stage 1 agreement, the alleged violations include simultaneous violations of the Student Code of Conduct, or if the seriousness of the allegations merits a formal hearing, the instructor must complete the Honor Policy Hearing Recommendation Form Academic and the appropriate reference form Submit documents to the Associate Dean of the Faculty and Administrative Affairs. The hearing takes place in a non-adversarial manner with a clear focus on fact-finding with the proceedings. With all FSU faculty, staff and students working outside of our usual rooms during the coronavirus crisis, we understand that you may feel some uncertainty. Below are some frequently asked questions you might have during this time.
Yes! Inform Peggy Wright-Cleveland by email of your outstanding performance (TARU Award) and she will process your request for a raise. Within 15 teaching days (defined throughout the grade call system from Monday to Friday during the regular fall, spring and summer semesters, as indicated in the FSU academic calendar maintained by the University Registrar. Teaching days do not depend on whether an individual student has lessons on a particular day) After the date on which the final grades are made available to students, the student should contact the teacher in question to discuss the grade and try to resolve disputes. The student must document all attempts to contact the teacher to determine that the call was initiated during this 15-day school period. In the event that the instructor is not available, the student must provide this documentation to the instructor`s program or department manager. It is expected that the student will first try to resolve the academic dispute with the teacher; However, during this process, the student or instructor may consult with the appropriate department head, principal or officer. . This stage 1 procedure is implemented with allegations of the first crime that do not involve gross violations. The decision as to whether a claim is outrageous is made by the Vice President of Faculty Development and Promotion (or Commissioner) and the speaker. The teacher must take into account the seriousness of the violation, the student`s situation, possible learning opportunities and compliance with previous sanctions when determining a proposed sanction. The following sanctions are available in the Step 1 procedure. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 1006.53, Florida State University`s Policy on Observance of Work-Restricted Religious Holidays provides that students, upon notification by their teacher, are released from classes within the first two weeks of the semester to celebrate a solemn religious day restricted to the work of their faith.
Although students are held responsible for the material covered in their absence, each student has a reasonable amount of time to compensate for the missed work. Under no circumstances should professors and university administrators arbitrarily punish students who are absent from academic or social activities due to religious observance of restricted work holidays. Instructors will find the calendar developed by the University of Missouri (diversity.missouri.edu/guide-to-religions/dates-practices-accomodations/) to be a useful resource for responding to student absenteeism requests. Students who claim that this policy has been misused in some cases may have their complaints dealt with through the general academic appointment process. In this process, the student complains first to the professor, then to the head of department, and finally to the academic dean who is suitable for the course in question, and stops at the level at which the complaint is resolved. If no solution is found, the student will take the complaint to the Vice-President of Faculty Development and Funding for decision or referral to the Student Academic Committee of the Faculty Senate. This committee has the power to recommend to the Vice-President, Academic Affairs, that corrective action be taken in justified cases. A full description can be found in the “Complaint Procedure” section of this chapter. At the end of the hearing, the Hearing Panel will decide whether to be “responsible” or “not responsible” for each alleged violation.
When a decision is made about who is responsible, the hearing panel creates a set of academic outcomes that the student must complete in order to complete the honour process. These results are described in detail in the decision letter with a deadline for completion. Allegations of academic dishonesty involving a doctoral student who is in a preliminary or full examination, thesis or dissertation phase are treated as blatant and resolved by the Stage 2 process, in which the principal professor acts as an “instructor” as part of the hearing proceedings. The Vice-President of Faculty Development and Promotion and the Dean of Student Studies (as well as the Vice-President of Research in grant-funded research cases) should be informed of these allegations as soon as possible. The decision to refer the matter to the hearing is made by a committee composed of the head of department and two faculty members appointed by the Dean of Studies, one of whom should be the member of the student committee acting as a representative of the university (if identified), with the exception of the principal professor […].